Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:09:03.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Not a Sure Thing: Fitness, Probability, and Causation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Denis M. Walsh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In evolutionary biology changes in population structure are explained by citing trait fitness distribution. I distinguish three interpretations of fitness explanations—the Two-Factor Model, the Single-Factor Model, and the Statistical Interpretation—and argue for the last of these. These interpretations differ in their degrees of causal commitment. The first two hold that trait fitness distribution causes population change. Trait fitness explanations, according to these interpretations, are causal explanations. The last maintains that trait fitness distribution correlates with population change but does not cause it. My defense of the Statistical Interpretation relies on a distinctive feature of causation. Causes conform to the Sure Thing Principle. Trait fitness distributions, I argue, do not.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 77 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 147 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

I wish to thank audiences in Exeter, Dubrovnik, Leeds, Bristol, Vienna, and the PSA meeting in Pittsburgh. I am particularly indebted to Michael Strevens, Bruce Glymour, Matthew Haug, Chris Haufe, Matthew Slater, Greg Mikkelson, Joel Velasco, and Elliott Sober for their helpful comments.

References

Abrams, Marshall. 2007a. “Fitness and Propensity's Annulment?” Biology and Philosophy 22:115–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrams, Marshall. 2007b. “How Do Natural Selection and Random Drift Interact?” Philosophy of Science 74:666–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beatty, John. 1984. “Chance and Natural Selection.” Journal of Philosophy 51:183–211.Google Scholar
Beatty, John. 1992. “Fitness.” In Key Words in Evolutionary Biology, ed. Keller, E. Fox and Lloyd, E. A., 115–19. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Beatty, John, and Finsen, Susan. 1989. “Rethinking the Propensity Interpretation—a Peek inside Pandora's Box.” In What the Philosophy of Biology Is, ed. Ruse, Michael, 17–30. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, Frédéric, and Rosenberg, Alexander. 2004. “Fitness, Probability and the Principles of Natural Selection.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55:693–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, Robert. 2005. “The Difference between Selection and Drift: A Reply to Millstein.” Biology and Philosophy 20:153–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, Robert, and Beatty, John. 1984. “The Propensity Interpretation of ‘Fitness’—No Interpretation Is No Substitute.” Philosophy of Science 51:342–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 1979. “Causal Laws and Effective Strategies.” Nous 13:419–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 1994. Nature's Capacities and Their Measurements. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobzhansky, Theodosius, and Pavlovsky, Olga. 1957. “An Experimental Study of the Interaction between Genetic Drift and Natural Selection.” Evolution 11 (3): 311–19..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, John H. 1974. “Natural Selection for Within-Generation Variance in Offspring Number.” Genetics 76:601–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillespie, John H. 1975. “Natural Selection for Within-Generation Variance in Offspring Number II.” Genetics 81:403–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillespie, John H. 1977. “Natural Selection for Variances in Offspring Numbers: A New Evolutionary Principle.” American Naturalist 111:1010–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glymour, Bruce. 1999. “Population Level Causation and a Unified Theory of Natural Selection.” Biology and Philosophy 14:521–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, J. A., Thériault, G., Reintjes, R., and Boer, A. de. 2000. “Simpson's Paradox in Meta-Analysis.” Epidemiology 11 (September): 613–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haug, Matthew. 2007. “Of Mice and Metaphysics: Natural Selection and Realized Population-Level Properties.” Philosophy of Science 74:431–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, M. J. S. 1987. “Natural Selection as a Causal, Empirical and Probabilistic Theory.” In The Probabilistic Revolution, ed. Kruger, L., 233–70. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Karlin, S., and Liberman, U. 1974. “Random Temporal Variation in Selection Intensities: Case of Large Population Size.” Theoretical Population Biology 6:355–82.Google ScholarPubMed
Levikson, B., and Karlin, S. 1975. “Random Temporal Variation in Selection Intensities Acting in Infinite Diploid Populations: Diffusion Methods Analysis.” Theoretical Population Biology 8:292–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewens, Tim. 2009. “The Natures of Selection.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Electronically published October 15.Google Scholar
Matthen, Mohan, and Ariew, André. 2002. “Two Ways of Thinking about Fitness and Natural Selection.” Journal of Philosophy 99:55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, Susan, and Beatty, J. 1979. “The Propensity Interpretation of Fitness.” Philosophy of Science 46:263–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millstein, Roberta L. 2002. “Are Random Drift and Natural Selection Conceptually Distinct?” Biology and Philosophy 17:33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millstein, Roberta L. 2006. “Natural Selection as a Population-Level Causal Process.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57:627–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, H. Allen. 2007. “Absolute Fitness, Relative Fitness, and Utility.” Evolution 61 (12): 2997–3000..CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearl, Judea. 1998. “Simpson's Paradox: An Anatomy.” http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1216&context=uclastat.Google Scholar
Pearl, Judea. 2000. Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ramsey, Grant, and Brandon, Robert. 2007. “What's Wrong with the Emergentist Statistical Interpretation of Natural Selection and Random Drift.” In The Cambridge Companion to Philosophy of Biology, ed. Ruse, Michael and Hull, David L. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reisman, Kenneth, and Forber, Patrick. 2005. “Manipulation and the Causes of Evolution.” Philosophy of Science 72:1113–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Alexander. 2006. Darwinian Reductionism, or How to Stop Worrying and Love Molecular Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Wesley. 1984. Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Lawrence A., and Sober, Elliott. 2007. “Epiphenomenalism—the Do's and Don’ts.” In Studies in Causality: Historical and Contemporary, ed. Wolters, G. and Machamer, P., 235–64. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Slatkin, Montgomery. 1974. “Hedging One's Evolutionary Bets.” Nature 250:704–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 1984. The Nature of Selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 2001. “The Two Faces of Fitness.” In Thinking about Evolution, ed. Singh, R. S., Krimbas, C. B., Paul, D. B., and Beatty, J., 309–21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 2008. Evidence and Evolution: The Logic behind the Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott, and Wilson, David Sloan. 1994. “A Critical Review of Philosophical Work on the Units of Selection Problem.” Philosophy of Science 61:534–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stearns, Stephen. 2000. “Daniel Bernoulli (1738): Evolution and Economics under Risk.” Journal of Biosciences 25:221–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, Christopher. 2004. “Selection, Drift, and the ‘Forces’ of Evolution.” Philosophy of Science 71:550–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, Denis M. 2007. “The Pomp of Superfluous Causes: The Interpretation of Evolutionary Theory.” Philosophy of Science 74:281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, Denis M., Lewens, Tim, and Ariew, André. 2002. “The Trials of Life: Natural Selection and Random Drift.” Philosophy of Science 69:452–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, Kenneth C. 2005. “Why Genic and Multi-level Selection Theories Are Here to Stay.” Philosophy of Science 72:311–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, James. 1988. “Understanding Regression.” In PSA 1988: Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1, ed. Fine, Arthur and Leplin, Jarrett, 255–69. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Woodward, James. 2002. “What Is a Mechanism? A Counterfactual Account.” Philosophy of Science 69 (Proceedings): S366–S377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, James. 2003. Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, Sewall. 1931. “Evolution in Mendelian Populations.” Genetics 16:97–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed